- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:51:46 -0700
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Yves Lafon wrote: > > The current fallback is sniffing, not another header. > Yes, currently, but implementing an alternative to media types (not that I'm in favor of it) leads to a new header unless the meaning of Content-Type is universally changed. > > Adding a new header won't solve the issues outlined by Larry's > document. > No, it won't, and if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, I think URIs are a horrible idea as an alternative to a registry, and off-topic here. The topic here is fixing the registry, not replacing it, so any talk about how to replace media types with URIs belongs elsewhere, was really my point -- not to begin a debate about sniffing. > > That said, minting URIs to query a registry might be helpful. > I'm responding to the undying meme of using URIs in Content-Type; the folks interested in that are against the registry concept. What's their way forward? My answer is, not changing Content-Type to accept URIs in addition to tokens, but a new header to check before falling back to sniffing. This has nothing to do with sniffing. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 18:52:31 UTC